Oesophageal symptoms are common and associated with other functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) in an English‐speaking Western population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence and frequency of oesophageal symptoms suggestive of a functional oesophageal disorder according to the Rome IV criteria are unknown. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the prevalence and risk factors for oesophageal symptoms compatible with functional oesophageal disorders in the general population. METHODS: Data were analysed from a population-based online survey of 6300 individuals aged ≥ 18 years in the USA, UK and Canada with equal demographic proportions across countries. Questions included the Rome IV diagnostic questionnaire, demographics, medication, somatization, quality of life, and organic gastrointestinal (GI) disease. Multivariate analysis was used to identify factors independently related to oesophageal symptoms. RESULTS: Data from 5177 participants (47.8% female; mean age 46.7 years) were available for analysis. Symptom prevalence was 8.1% for globus, 6.5% for heartburn, 4.5% for dysphagia and 5.2% for chest pain, and 17.0% reported at least one oesophageal symptom. Oesophageal symptoms were independently associated with younger age, female gender, previous abdominal surgery and the presence of other functional GI disorders. Reporting oesophageal symptoms was associated with reduced quality of life. CONCLUSION: Oesophageal symptoms are common in the general population and important predictors include other functional GI disorders, age and gender. Oesophageal symptoms are associated with poorer quality of life.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".